Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Makes it sound like the communication from the C20 chairman didn't matter because it didn't come from the MEC doesn't it?
Uh,.....no! It makes it sound like the C20 Chairman communicated in his Chairman's Letter, something he believed to be true at the time, which ultimately came down to not being true.
Ever made a mistake Carl? How about seeing the truth of the matter, and the fact that the LEC C20 Chairman was possibly mistaken by his statement.
"No spin involved in anyone's world, other than yours Carl."
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
The truth is that an LEC chairman actually has role on the MEC...imagine that.
You're repeating me Carl. Stop repeating what I said. What next, you're going to start telling TSquare how accurate his statements are too?
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Yet Mr. Jerk tries to make it sound as though the C20 chairman's letter stating that the opener would not be released had nothing to do with the MEC.
Again, I neither inferred or said any such thing. My statement was, and is now, that the C20 Chairman's Letter stated the opener wouldn't be shared. (It is beyond my seniority level whether it was properly vetted or not?) Fast forward to contract opener exchange, the opener is then shared with the pilot group. Doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that either the communication was wrong, misinformed, or they changed their minds. No conspiracy involved in the making of this post Carl.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Of course now we know that the C20 chairman was correct. The members were not allowed to see the opener. They were given a fake "conceptual" opener.
Because you, being the Grand Poobah of your Donut Hole Club, didn't received the "opener" you were wanting/hoping/expecting, you claim to have not received any opener?
Really? If you ask for an apple, and someone gives you a green one, when really what you wanted was a Ruby Red, you're going to tell people you didn't receive an apple? If your logic is behind this Dee - Pea - Ay drive, we're all in for some drastic contract improvements.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Your attempt at spin and obfuscation is telling. Why do you paid MEC volunteers have to behave this way? Why can't you just trust us with the truth, and trust us to vote our conscience?
You're not the "victim" Carl. Quit with the "poor me", we've all been "victims" of our mean and scary MEC for too long. You have a "no" vote, just like I do, and everyone else on the seniority list. Exercise it if you don't like the TA, PLAIN & SIMPLE!
GJ